The rung this project deliberately does not build. Clearwing already runs
sandbox lifecycles, container pools, sanitizer images, PoC replay and stability
classification, and the corrective brief concluded -- from this project's own
defect history -- that reimplementing that machinery is where we go wrong. So
model/execution.py decides eligibility, calls an adopted tool, and records what
happened. A test asserts structurally that it imports no container or
subprocess machinery and defines no build/run/compile/patch function, because
the failure mode to prevent is this file quietly growing a sandbox.
Eligibility is narrow in both directions: only a family a static model cannot
arbitrate (memory safety in C, where the bug turns on runtime layout -- Req
10.3 forbids any web/logic family depending on this tier, and each now has
taint, dominance or constant abstraction instead), and only a finding the model
left undecided. The tier escalates uncertainty; it never re-checks a verdict.
One deliberate asymmetry: a failure to reproduce is NOT a refutation. A sandbox
that does not trigger a bug has not shown the bug is absent, only that this
attempt did not trigger it, so the candidate stays where the model left it.
Reading a failed reproduction as a clean bill of health is the same error class
as reading an absent engine as "no vulnerability".
With no adopted tool present -- the normal case -- the rung is never reached and
clearwing_unavailable is recorded.
All 16 tasks of model-grounded-detection are now done. 720 passing, mypy/ruff
clean, gates byte-identical, zero orphaned modules.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
